2023 (12) TMI 657 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144(b) - high income from agricultural activities - as argued petitioner's request for personal hearing through video conference was not at all considered which is vital opportunity - as argued denial of said opportunity amount to violation of principles of natural justice - respondents have filed a counter stating that the petitioner has an effective, alternative statutory appellate remedy to file statutory appeal before the Commission - assessee claims that he was given only two days time, the proceedings were open upto 26.09.2022, during which the assessee ought to have responded HELD THAT - In the present case, the respondents have issued notice under Section 143(2) on 29.06.2021. Thereafter eight notices were issued to the petitioner on various dates. Since the petitioner has not responded properly by giving details, the same cannot be considered as violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents further submitted the petitioner has not sought for video conference hearing and relied on the submission of the petitioner dated 22.09.2022. But the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner has sought for video conference hearing through E-mail. In the said Email communication is clearly mentioned that since it is high pitch assessment the petitioner has sought video conference hearing. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that it is clearly violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted Village Administrative Officer s certificate wherein it is mentioned the petitioner is the owner to some of the lands and the petitioner is having lease rights to some of the lands. However the Village Administrative Officer had issued the certificate in Tamil but the respondent is insisting to submit documents either in English or Hindi. It is the practice in the State of Tamil Nadu that the VAO would to issue certificate in Tamil. If need by the respondent may direct the petitioner to submit translation copy. For the reasons stated supra the impugned assessment order is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant video conference hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer and also submit the translation copy. The said assessment shall be completed within a period of eight weeks (8) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. WP allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Requirement of translation of Village Administrative Officer's certificate.
3. Validity of the assessment order.

Summary:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, an agriculturist cultivating Gloriosa Superba Species, challenged the assessment proceedings dated 26.09.2022 for the assessment year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the respondent did not consider his request for a video conference hearing, which was vital for presenting his case, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had sought a video conference hearing via email, which the respondent failed to acknowledge. The court noted this as a clear violation of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

Requirement of Translation of Village Administrative Officer's Certificate:
The petitioner submitted certificates from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in Tamil, certifying his ownership and lease rights over the land cultivated with Gloriosa Superba Species. The respondent insisted on documents in English or Hindi. The court recognized that it is customary in Tamil Nadu for the VAO to issue certificates in Tamil and directed that the petitioner may submit translated copies if required by the respondent.

Validity of the Assessment Order:
The court observed that the petitioner had been given multiple notices and opportunities to respond but failed to provide adequate details. However, considering the violation of natural justice due to the ignored request for a video conference hearing, the court quashed the assessment order. The respondents were directed to grant a video conference hearing and complete the reassessment within eight weeks, allowing the petitioner to submit the necessary certificates and their translations.

Conclusion:
The Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the impugned assessment order and directing a reassessment with a video conference hearing. No order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.